Hope for Zelda Wii U: Non-linearity and… Multiplayer?

Axle the BeastFebruary 17th, 2013 by Axle the Beast

Another new discussion video, this time about Zelda Wii U! I’m sure most of you are familiar with the recent news on the subject, about Nintendo wanting to “rethink the conventions of Zelda” and their two examples of what they want to change. This video covers my thoughts and reactions to their sentiments, as well as my hopes and concerns for Zelda Wii U. Enjoy! You can watch the video here or check out the embed after the jump.

Here’s the video about The Wind Waker HD that I did last week, as well as the old Zelda multiplayer article I wrote, if you’re interested in them (since I mentioned them in the video). Also, not to spam links, but I realized shortly after recording the video that Alex Plant of GenGAME wrote an article conveying similar sentiments to my concerns about Nintendo potentially thinking that making the dungeon order open alone makes the game non-linear enough. He probably worded it more eloquently than I could in this video, too. Haha. Ultimately I’m very hopeful for this game, but I don’t believe that’s it’s impossible it could disappoint. After all, Skyward Sword managed to be disappointing even though it was an enjoyable game. Still, Zelda Wii U should be awesome!

So what about you? Are you excited about Zelda Wii U? Were you ever not excited about it? What are your thoughts on Nintendo’s plan for the game? And most importantly, what do you think the “essence” of Zelda is? Tell me in the comments!

Share this post

  • JeredenDonnar


    • Supermagnum83

      Your the first spastic.

    • Someone


      You deserve the Internet sword. The blade of trolling’s bane.

      • Midnafan

        XD should be bigger and flashier though. :P

      • Draco

        The handle kind of looks like the master swords handle.

      • Hutsuva


        • FLUDD


        • Hero-of-the-Sky

          is is better.

    • Midnafan

      haven’t seen one of those in a while

    • itsameluigi1290


      *Blue shell*

  • LisaMissa

    I personally think that multiplayer shouldn’t be a big aspect. Maybe as a side part as in the DS games, but I really enjoy how you can complete the adventure by yourself. I think that’s the best part about even completing a Zelda game, when you know you did it all by yourself. I’ll be happy to hear what Nintendo will be saying about this.

    • Midnafan

      I can’t imagine that concept changing anytime soon either. That’s essentially what the series is all about. It was based on Miyamoto’s own imaginary adventures as a kid. The thrill of going off and exploring without a bunch of other kids coming up with their own rules and ruining the imagination of it. I think Nintendo will always keep it like that. So you can go on your own adventure without anyone else’s opinions or antics to change or ruin your own personal experience. It’s each players adventure, and their’s alone. Does that makes sense? :)

  • JeredenDonnar

    Please don’t make multiplayer a big deal, it kinda makes null sibling rivalries, you know, “that’s my file!! I beat it first!!” and that is a blast; also it would make a feasible storyline difficult. I personally loved TWW and if they could make an overworld “LIKE” that, without the King’s forced direction and the unaccessible-until-hookshot islands, that would be great! There could be places that you couldn’t do anything in until you got a certain item, but at least allow us to go that place to find that out! So long as they don’t implant some new uber-villain like demise again, I’ll be ok. I hate arbitrary “badder-than-what-was” characters. Also………pleas no more motion control. can’t we justr play a game? Maybe just make it (or its opposite) an option? That was my least favorite part of SS; I hated having to move my hands or twist the remote correctly, it really just allows for an abuse of puzzles. And if I had to fight Ganon from OoT with motion control, I would die. PLease stop the madness.

    • Midnafan

      Multiplayer never has been a big deal (except for maybe FS, but even that was a side game) Maybe they could make items work a bit like HMs in Pokemon, once you have it, you can go back and fully explore an area or open up the path to a new dungeon. As for Demise, I’m pretty sure he’s as bad as villains are gonna get (that was the point after all) and from here on will be the remnants of his curse continually wreaking havoc on Hyrule. of course, the bad guys gotta get badder at some point. if they stay the same or get milder, than the overall conflict will get stale or die down. You can only fight the same guy for the same reason a couple times. You gotta mix it up, even of its just a little bit. :)

  • Zero Wat

    I think there should be optional co-op where one player plays as Link, and one player plays as Zelda.

    • Midnafan

      ST could have done that, maybe not a console game though. Thinking back, why didn’t ST do that? the game would have been awesome that way. :/

  • erikingvoldsen

    I…am not excited for Zelda U. I feel non-linearity is one of the worst (if not THE worst) thing that could happen to the Zelda. To me, it’s the reason the first four titles were so weak compared to newer titles. Linearity offers so much to the series such as story, difficulty curve, and expanding puzzles while non-linearity restricts developers from making a building story, building puzzles, and increasing difficulty. While I’m fine with a non-linear path like OoT, MM, tWW and TP, I do NOT want a non-linearity like we saw in LoZ-LA that was the reason they had such weak stories and puzzles.

    Zelda, to me, is currently at its peak with suck amazing games like TP, SS, and even ST. I’d had to see them go back to their lower quality days. They do not need to needlessly change the series again when it’s doing so well right now. They made this mistake in the Wind Waker era right after such amazing games like OoT and MM and, in the end, they paid the price with awful game sales and, ultimately, go back where they were and make TP to recover their tarnished image.

    Honestly, this seems to be a pattern to me…Nintendo does four mediocre games, four good games, and repeat. Sorta like the Even-Number Star Trek pattern.

    Loz-AoL-aLttP-LA: Mediocre
    OoT-MM-OoS-OoA: Good
    tWW-FS-FSA-MC: Mediocre

    TP-PH-ST-SS: Good

    Zelda Wii U is starting to look pretty scary right now and I’m worried Nintendo is going to abandon everything that has made the series so great and go back to their mediocrity and fail once again. I don’t know if Zelda’s image can survive another era of failure.

    • Midnafan

      Okay, you should realize that pattern of yours is completely opinion and doesn’t determine whatsoever what Zelda U will be like. Now, i do love the same games you love, and i don’t care for the older ones either. But remember: that was 27 years ago! of course the series has gotten better since then! and so has technology, and the world itself has changed a lot since then. i don’t think that gives anyone the right to call the older games terrible or worse, they’re just older, and the basis for even the newer ones you like. Trust me, there are plenty of people who will severely disagree with you, so watch out. I think its important to express your opinion, but don’t try and put it out there like it;s fact. that tends to po some people. :)

      • erikingvoldsen

        Age doesn’t mean much. OoT is ancient and many people regard it as the best Zelda even to this day. I myself place it as my 3rd favorite over several newer games.

        • Midnafan

          my point is that you shouldn’t criticize older games for not being like newer ones because the older ones didn’t have the same ideas the newer ones have. i can understand complaints about games between OoT and say WW. but don’t bash on the first four, as a lot of people hold them dear (not me necessarily, but Zelda is one of the few series where people have emotional attachments to certain games. all i advise is you don’t be too harsh with your opinion)

          • erikingvoldsen

            You completely lost me in your first sentence. That is the only reason you should criticize older games. The only other reason you would is because of sound quality and graphics–which is a pretty darn shallow.

          • DementedAvenger27

            except when the older ideas were better than some of the new.

          • Midnafan

            okay. its not like they can go back in time and remake LoZ like SS! it wasn’t possible! you can’t criticize a game for not doing something that was impossible for it to do! that makes no sense! all i’m saying is that you can dislike the games or not prefer them, but you need to take into account they’re older. the older games were pretty damn amazing when they first came out, and a lot of people still have those feelings.

          • itsameluigi1290

            “my point is that you shouldn’t criticize older games for not being like
            newer ones because the older ones didn’t have the same ideas the newer
            ones have.”

            The entire Sonic fanbase in a nutshell.

          • Midnafan

            that’s sad.

          • itsameluigi1290

            Yes, it is. I, however, am NOT part of that fanbase, even though I love Sonic.

    • IgosDuIkana

      Um… this mediocrity you speak of was Zelda’s claim to fame. I’m sorry that you want Zelda to become like every other game out there. Zelda did a lot to revolutionize gaming and they stopped doing that. They stopped doing things that were daring and contested the natural order of gaming, and you call this good.

      • erikingvoldsen

        It didn’t really gain much fame until OoT which was, after all, the first game that started taking a real linear direction.

        • IgosDuIkana

          Yes, but it was generally accepted that the first game did something that had never been done before on a console and not to the same extent on the pc… I am not talking fame by the general populace I am talking about fame by means of doing something that is new an innovative in a time where there are few to acknowledge it. Gaming was small time then anyway, and to gamers Zelda was a big deal

        • DementedAvenger27

          Zelda was famous from the very beginning and it wasn’t Ocarina that made it garner REAL fame it, it was A Link to the Past.

          • erikingvoldsen

            Yeah–no. aLttP did pretty poorly with sales that were later trumped by Links Crossbow Training.

          • DementedAvenger27

            sales don’t determine fame. How bout calculating total sales now with VC and remake/rereleases now?

          • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

            Wow… you know nothing about the gaming industry at all do you.

            Do you know how many people were gaming in 1992? Seriously.

            The video game business back at the time of the NES release was roughly worth about $100 million.

            Today the Video Game industry is worth close to $65 billion.

            The business is larger today, with millions more avid gamers today then back in 1992 when A Link to the Past.

            If A Link to the Past did pretty poorly with sales, then why is it referenced as “one of the best-selling SNES games, with 4.61 million units sold worldwide”


            Link to the Past sold millions during a time period when making a million sales was actually a huge accomplishment…. as opposed to in today’s gaming market where to not hit a million sales is seen as a disappointment.

            Again though not as if sales are an indicator of quality of a game by any means.

          • DementedAvenger27

            exactly. If a game’s fame went by sales, then a lot of games wouldn’t be too popular. Sometimes games sell poorly at launch or even during a system’s life cycle, but tend to grow in popularity over time.

        • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

          What were you born in 1990 or something and weren’t around when A Link to the Past came out?

          A Link to the Past was an incredibly famous game.

          A lot of the hype and anticipation for Ocarina of Time was built on the fact that everyone who loved A Link to the Past had to wait 7 years for the next Zelda game.

          • itsameluigi1290

            I only played about 15 seconds of aLttP on the emulator. It’s awesome XD BTW, is aLttP on Virtual Console anywhere?

          • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

            Yeah it was actually one of the first titles to hit Virtual Console, before Ocarina of Time or Majora’s Mask.

            My assumption is it will be released for the Wii U as part of their SNES Virtual Console launch in the spring as well.

            For now though the only legit place to buy it is through the old Wii Shopping Channel.

          • itsameluigi1290

            Oh really? Cool, thanks! *Goes to look for money in the gutter*

          • http://marjimusic.com/nwtb Clockwerk Orange


          • itsameluigi1290

            I actually have some money on me right now, but I can’t decide on what I want to get. Paper Mario 4, that other 3DS game which I forgot the name of, or if I should wait for TWW HD!

            So many choices :D

          • http://marjimusic.com/nwtb Clockwerk Orange

            i want to get a ps3 for the 5 games i find interesting on it, listed as such; Sly 4 (game looks awesome!), journey, Jak HD collection (i own the ps2 ones), Sly hd collection (own the ps2 ones here too), and finally the not released yet KH3

          • itsameluigi1290


            KH is awesome, Journey is fun, can’t say anything about Jak as I haven’t played it, saw my friend play Sly 3 and it looked fun, so Sly 4 should be great! I think the PS3 is good, but make sure you get a newer model. We have an old one, so it has barely any memory, downloads stuff really slow, etc. You must always be careful when buying systems… except for with Nintendo since all of their systems are awesome :P

          • http://marjimusic.com/nwtb Clockwerk Orange

            the only reason i would want the old ps3 is to play ps2 games upscaled. Otherwise ill stick with the newest model

          • itsameluigi1290

            Yeah, stupid how only one of the PS3s are backwards compatible :/

          • http://marjimusic.com/nwtb Clockwerk Orange

            oh and it ends up that the ps4 CANNOT play ps3 games. so that makes me not want it.

          • itsameluigi1290

            Yeah, it can stream PS3, PS2 and PS1 games though, but it honestly doesn’t look that special.

          • http://marjimusic.com/nwtb Clockwerk Orange

            oh. someone else told me it couldnt play ps3. But seeing as thats what i would be playing, why spend more for the ps4? ill just get a ps3

          • itsameluigi1290

            Good idea. Plus the PS4 is probably gonna be $2,000 or something crazy :/

          • http://marjimusic.com/nwtb Clockwerk Orange

            yeah lol. Wow, we sustained a conversation over multiple days. Lovely :D

          • itsameluigi1290

            We are the conversation masters. NO ONE DARES DEFIES US! *Gets glares from mods* Uh, I mean, besides you wonderful people of course! Heh heh… heh…

      • IgosDuIkana

        I hate to reply to myself but the series has gotten worse not better since the advent of this stale appealing to casual gamers with the attention span of a gnat. I as well as most people who love zelda were challenged by it and had breezed through other games and found games like alttp to be truly immersive on a new level.

        • erikingvoldsen

          If you want challenge Zelda isn’t–no…NINTENDO isn’t for you. But that’s hardly important as non-linearity will only make the games easier.

          • DementedAvenger27

            Really? Mario games have always been, for the most part, challenging. Fire Emblem, Metroid, Donkey Kong Country, all pretty challenging games. In fact, its the zelda series as of late that has been super easy. That needs to change.

          • erikingvoldsen

            Mario games are easy as hell. I…cannot even fathom how you get even remotely challenged by them. Metroid is harder than Zelda, yes, but it pales in comparison to other FPS when it comes to difficulty.

            And, again, whether it needs to change or not, non-linearity is only going to make it easier. Nintendo will have no means of creating a difficulty curve unless they can plan the order and make them progressively harder. Otherwise we get 8 Dungeons as easy as an Entry Level dungeon and then 1 decently challenged dungeon at the end–which is only there because of the minimal linearity they had to add to it in order to make it last.

          • DementedAvenger27

            Lost Levels? Challenging. Later levels of Mario Galaxy, Mario 64 and even 3D Land? Challenging. Not super difficult, but challenging…like they take some platforming skill. Fail to mention Fire Emblem or DKC though huh?

            And not necessarily, what about the original Zelda? The dungeons got progressively harder and it wasn’t a linear game. They had a planned order, a difficulty curve, and it wasn’t linear. Same with a Link to the Past.

          • itsameluigi1290

            Dat lava level daredevil comet in Galaxy 1.


            And yeah I kept dying in Fire Emblem Awakening. And don’t even get me STARTED on DKC. Even Donkey Kong Country Returns was hard, which is weird, since, IMO, newer games are always easier than retro games. For example, New Super Mario Bros. U is the easiest Mario game I’ve ever played (Yet people on Miiverse complain it’s so hard), where as Super Mario Bros. 2 is extremely difficult!

            Just my opinion on it. :P

          • erikingvoldsen

            Lost Levels yes but we’re sticking with current times. SM64? HAHAHAHAH–no. Galaxy? No. 3D Land? You’re kidding right? DKCR was almost as easy as DK64. I will admit I haven’t played Fire Emblem.

            Yeah and compare LoZ to SMB3 which was linear and had a real difficulty curve whereas all of the LoZ dungeons felt the same. Put down your whistle and complete the game for real. Then, with a straight face, tell me it was easier than LoZ.

          • DementedAvenger27

            OOOH I didn’t realize this debate had stipulations. You’re telling me that Rainbow Road and Tick Tock Clock were a breeze? DKC was as easy DK 64? Wow you must be the guru of video games. You never died at all playing those games, huh? And wait, I thought we were sticking current times, why are you bringing up SMB 3? And where did you get me saying SMB 3 was easier than LoZ? Or vice versa? This is going no where. Can you debate the points i made and not make up your own argument?

          • erikingvoldsen

            “You’re telling me that Rainbow Road and Tick Tock Clock were a breeze?”

            Yes. Exceedingly easy. My 6 year old cousin beat this game with ease just like I did when I was 8. And at my current age? It’s a joke.

            “You never died at all playing those games, huh?”

            A couple of times during DKCR, not during SM64, but dying=/=difficulty. Everyone dies a couple of times–even in casual games like Kirby. But, still, you don’t die often and you never get stuck.

            “Can you debate the points i made and not make up your own argument?”

            Uhhhh no. That was just childish right there. I’m not going to sit back and shoot down your same repetitious arguments over and over again. Otherwise we’ll get nowhere. Also, that was debating your point. LoZ didn’t have a difficulty curve with the exception of the bosses. Compare it to SMB3 on the same system and it’s obvious which game had the real difficulty curve.

          • DementedAvenger27

            It was childish asking you to debate what we are talking about and not just throw things out of left field? well then call me a baby. Guess I should go back to debate class then?

            Your current age? you don’t much act like it. Your arrogance is dripping all over this forum. Its amazing that you were so good at video games at age 8 and just ripped right through those game. For that I commend you.

            And I don’t know if you’re just being proud or what, but LoZ most certainly had a difficulty curve. Later temples included more enemies were harder to navigate. We didn’t have guides back then to help us. But I understand you’re amazing at video games. You got one thing right, we’ve gotten no where. This is tiresome.

          • BlackRaven6695

            This is one of the most venomous comment threads I’ve seen on this site.

          • DementedAvenger27

            lol yeah I’m not too proud of it. but sometimes things get heated.

          • itsameluigi1290

            I’m so bad at games, I died in Kirby’s Epic Yarn!

            *Ba dum tish*

          • http://marjimusic.com/nwtb Clockwerk Orange

            i dont think it worked… an A+ for trying to relieve tension though!

          • itsameluigi1290

            Heh heh, thanks. I’m never good with debates/arguments, so I figure I might as well lighten the mood! Since, you know, anger usually blinds you from what’s right and makes you say things that you usually wouldn’t say. In fact, fighting anger/rage is a main element in my Zelda comics (Which I can’t put online due to the fact that they’re terribly drawn).

          • npatoray24

            no shame haha, this is too funny

          • itsameluigi1290

            omg I’m like getting popular or something :O

          • npatoray24

            put down your whistle hahahaha

          • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

            You do realize that most modern games give regenerating health, an unlimited amount of continues, auto saves…. could go on.

            FPS games are easy to control, and easy enough to play that they have become as popular as they are.

            Mind you most people obsessed with FPS titles aren’t playing for the actual campaigns… they play them for the multiplayer. Which hey, is challenging when you are facing other human opponents.

            Still that campaign, the actual game itself…. are generally a joke when it comes to difficulty.

          • Mawk

            I’d say the Mario RPGs are very difficult, in fact ALL of them I had a tough time with. And the older platforming Marios were insanely difficult. I’m sure you didn’t beat the original Super Mario Bros. on your first try. Zelda games are difficult too. Not all of them, but most. Also, one other thing to note, most FPS games aren’t much of a challenge either.

          • Mawk

            One other thing, you sure as hell didn’t breeze through the Water Temple, that’s for sure

          • Vink

            I agree, SS was easy. Then I played the first LOZ, wow, so challenging but funXD.

        • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

          I wouldn’t go as far as to say that Zelda series has become stale.

          Skyward Sword was an amazing Zelda title and it’s certainly the best one can expect from such a linear Zelda title.

          Sadly that linearity is choking out the series sense of adventure, and the satisfying feeling of solving puzzles.

          Used to be that solutions weren’t spelled out so obviously. You had to try and experiment with your inventory of items to discover the solution. Now it’s predictable, and what items to use is spelled out for the player.

          Skyward Sword is the best linear Zelda one could ask for…. but it’s time they create an amazing more open world Zelda game.

    • DementedAvenger27

      strange that most consider Spirit Tracks Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword to be some of the weakest entries. Skyward Sword was a great game, but it had a lot of issues. I hope the game becomes more like the old ones while retaining the cinematic and epicness of the new games. Zelda to me was always about exploration. I hope they emphasize that in the new zelda. Zelda before Ocarina was not mediocrity, I don’t know how anyone can say that. I don’t think the lack of good story was because of non-linearity, I think it was because of gaming as a medium. Zelda has always been about the over-arcing story line. The LEGEND if you will. I though LA told a great story, especially for it being so limited. You just had to use your imagination a little bit.

      ps Wind Waker was awesome BECAUSE of the exploration.

      • erikingvoldsen

        Yeah TP did horrible, everyone hated it. That’s why it got the 2nd best sales in the series. The only game worse is OoT. Oh God how people hate OoT.

        You can’t make a good story without linearity unless you make it an RPG with branching paths…which Zelda is not. Puzzles cannot be built upon without linearity.

        • DementedAvenger27

          wow, never said people hated TP aaaand I didn’t even mention OOT. Just said many consider it one of the weaker entries. Its actually one of my favorites. settle down there child. And you can definitely make a good story without linearity. Look at…well Final Fantasy for instance. Open world, exploration, the story is there for you to explore OR you can go about and do other things. THAT’s what I think Zelda needs.

        • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

          Just because something sells that doesn’t make it the best.

          Justin Beiber sells millions of albums, and makes more money then any small band I listen to. Yet that doesn’t make him a better musician.

          The Twilight Movies, were box office dynamite, and yet they are poorly reviewed, and for the most part considered to have some of the worst acting ever.

          Call of Duty sells more copies every year, then a single Zelda title ever does. Yet for many people they consider Zelda far better in regards to game design.

          Twilight Princess sold buckets yes…. but a lot of the reason’s why it did was because of the hype, because so many people were not happy about Wind Waker’s cel-shading (cause people are superficial and graphics often sell games), it was a launched across two systems, was a launch title for a new system that was selling out, and it catered directly to everyone who loved Ocarina of Time (with large portions of the game playing on OoT’s nastolgia factor).

          TP sold extremely well, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was a better Zelda game then the rest.

          • erikingvoldsen

            Hype? Wind Waker and Skyward Sword both had far more hype–heck they even had commercials. They didn’t do well (Yes, even SS I admit). Hype has nothing to do with it. The only people who pay attention to E3 and stuff like that are actual gamers and fans, but that’s not where the money comes from. It never is. The Wii is proof of this.

          • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

            What are you trying to say Twilight Princess didn’t have commercials?



            Also hype has everything to do with Twilight Princess. People were waiting for it since this moment in 2004.


            This is how disheartened some where by Wind Waker… listen to cheers and excitement at E3, that no other Zelda game has ever had when announced.

            People standing and applauding over a one minute teaser. This was 3 years before the game was released…. from this moment on, people were hanging on to Nintendo’s every word about this game.

            The game was covered for 3 years in gaming press, websites and so forth building up the hype and spreading the word.

            That is a far different from Skyward Sword which was officially announced Summer 2010 and released Winter 2011. I suppose it was announced slightly earlier, though a very discreet and quiet affair. Being revealed to exist with nothing more then a piece of art that Miyamoto showed behind closed doors;


            There is a huge difference between how these two games were promoted and how hype was built up. Not to mention my non-gamer friends knew about Twilight Princess when it was launched, many didn’t know Skyward Sword existed until they saw me playing it.

            Seriously if you think there was more hype for other Zelda titles other then TP you have some obscure idea’s of hype.

        • itsameluigi1290

          How people hate OoT?

          What Kool-Aid have you been drinking? XD

          • erikingvoldsen
          • erikingvoldsen


          • itsameluigi1290


            You’re right XD

          • wafflegoat

            When people don’t understand sarcasm…

          • itsameluigi1290

            Oh. Hard to tell between sarcasm and being serious with text XD Sorry ’bout that :D

          • wafflegoat

            Tell me about! ;) especially when people say things like “hahaha” or “funny”. Ugh.

          • itsameluigi1290

            Yeah, or when they say “That’s GREAT!”, and then we’re like, “Glad you think so”, and he’s all like “NUUUUU I DID SARCASMZZZ”

            Of course I’ve never seen that exact conversation, buuuut yeah.

    • http://axlethebeast.com/ Axle the Beast

      I couldn’t disagree more. I’ve stated as much in a lot of articles way back when I first started writing them, but linearity has absolutely nothing to do with proper story progression. There are absolutely ways of tying an excellent cinematic experience into a non-linear game. It’s not even hard; I could outline a million ways of doing it. The early games didn’t have poor stories because they were non-linear… they had poor stories because they were old games, before Zelda began to prioritize presentation. And even then… Zelda, old or modern, has never really excelled at storytelling.

      Regarding difficulty curve, I could sort of see where you’re coming from, but if that’s a concern, simply make the intended order rather obvious; A Link to the Past’s dungeons were blatantly numbered even though you could do them in a different order.

      • Anonymous

        I always saw ALttP as a quasi-linear. Most of the dungeons seemed to need linear order, relying on items from previously-numbered dungeons to either reach said dungeon or to complete it, but not needing the previous dungeons to be completed.

        However, we didn’t see that as much in OoT. When I played Master Quest, I had a problem with the Torch puzzle at the beginning, so I did the Water Temple first to get the Fire Arrows. OoT seemed to me that there were groups, or blocks, of dungeons.

        While 100% linearity AND 100% non-linearity may make Zelda fail if done wrong, a block design can help Zelda keep the best of both worlds. This lets the player keep some freedom to travel and dungeon order, while keeping the available dungeons at a more acceptable difficulty level. These blocks won’t need items from the same block, but can require items from a previous block. Once you’ve completed the block, the storyline and dungeon availability will continue.

      • erikingvoldsen

        While I agree that Zelda could make a decent story without linearity…the fact is, it would be an RPG-like story with multiple paths and/or story orders. Let’s face it, Nintendo WON’T do it. They could…but they won’t. Zelda just isn’t an RPG. And, really, do you think it’s just coincidence that OoT just happened to be the first game to start being truly linear and it just happened to step up the story? Or that MM just happened to be the first complete linear game and step it up further than that?

        You can argue the older game’s difficulty…but…counter argument, Mario was a linear series back then and, aside from the original SMB, the games have always trumped Zelda in difficulty. The only LoZ title that can even compare is AoL.

        This is, again, not even mentioning the puzzle expansion. Thinking of ways to use more items in the dungeon to create more creative puzzles.

        • Gaseous Snake

          OoT was linear in the child era when players needed more guidance, but once you hit adult hood… there really wasn’t anything holding you back. MM was linear when it came to progressing through the story, but so much of MM is experienced in optional segments that less linear that it appears.

    • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

      “mediocrity and fail once again”

      If any of the first Zelda titles (Legend of Zelda and Link to the Past for example) had been mediocre or a failure (since you say “fail once again” implying that Zelda has in some way failed already from one of those previous entries), we wouldn’t even have Zelda today.

      Viewing that list of how you rate Zelda titles, you more or less have divided the quality of Zelda games down the middle between;

      Mediocre = 2D Zelda games
      Good = 3D Zelda games.

      The oddity being Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages….. which no offense Ages is not really that well made. Ages was actually really well designed… Seasons was a mish mash of two left over Zelda titles (oddly enough one being a part remake of the original LoZ).

      Still considering many of your statements and sentiments tend to suggest you value visuals (you do consider TP to be the high point) it isn’t hard to believe you simply see “modern graphically superior” as somehow equaling “better game”.

      Sadly what makes a great game isn’t just the visuals, or the plot, it’s also the gameplay and the content. Execution of every element is important. Oddly enough I’d say many of those classic titles, were far better balanced between plot, game play, and game design.

      • erikingvoldsen

        If any of the first Zelda titles had been that great, Link would have been the poster boy and not Mario.

        And while I do indeed feel that 3D is easily superior to 2D, that is not how I made the list. As you see, there are 3D and 2D games in all lists. I am merely judging them based on what I would expect for a 2D and 3D game respectively. For example, while I enjoy tWW more than OoX, I felt OoX was stronger in the 2D department while tWW felt like the weakest in the 3d department.

        • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

          Mario is the poster boy for Nintendo because it literally was the game that revived home console gaming, it was bundled with every system, and was easy and accessible compared to other Nintendo games.

          Not to mention he was in fact Miyamoto’s first creation, being the hero from his original Donkey Kong.

          The reason why Mario is the poster boy for Nintendo has nothing to do with “being better than” Zelda.

    • http://Legendarysmith.deviantart.com/ ArabDiSASTER

      You put Lttp on Mediocre, but OoT on Good, do you realize how really similar they are? REALLY similar, even though they are very different, there are a TON of Zelda fans that regard OoT as the 3D Lttp, plus, Lttp had a WONDERFUL 2 Overworlds.

      • erikingvoldsen

        They had similar concepts yes, but LttP’s item usage and puzzles were poor, the story was weak, the characters were unmemorable, and the combat was dull.

        • http://Legendarysmith.deviantart.com/ ArabDiSASTER

          I personally disagree with you but everyone has their opinions and I can respect that

    • Vink

      Clearly you raged quit after getting your ass kicked in the first Legend of Zelda.

      • erikingvoldsen

        AoL, yes. LoZ. No. It was a fine experience, but, unlike the newer titles, it’s not something I’d ever want to do more than once.

      • itsameluigi1290

        I didn’t rage quit, BUT, I gave up multiple times, lol. Something about older games I just find difficult. I can barely beat Sonic 1, and that’s from my favorite video game series of all time!

        (Also I knew you weren’t talking to me but I thought I’d say something anywayz)

  • Someone

    I’ve been playing through Majora’s Mask recently and I just love the freedom in the game, I would love it if they would at least take a step back to those days. Maybe they don’t need to go all non-linear since linear games have more place to play with the story and difficulty, but I don’t want a Skyward Sword all over again, that’s for sure ;)

    • erikingvoldsen

      Majora’s Mask was the first game to be fully linear.

      • Midnafan

        well that’s ironic

      • Someone

        Yeah you’re right about that one, but it still felt really free and that was thanks to the loads of sidequests, which can be done in a lot of orders. ^^

        • DementedAvenger27

          that would be perfect. have the story to explore at your leisure while having a bunch of sidequests to do in no particular order. we need another majora’s mask

      • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

        Actually it wasn’t fully linear. You don’t have to complete (by complete I mean defeat the boss) the dungeons in order to progress. The exception being Snowhead Temple…. you have to complete it in order to get the Keg Bomb and use it to access Romani Ranch to get Epona.

        Other wise though you could say go grab the bow & arrow in Woodfall Temple leave the dungeon and go and access Snowhead Temple if you wanted.

        Much the same way you don’t need to complete Great Bay Temple in order to access Stone Tower…. you just need the ice arrows in the dungeon… then you could leave if you want and not complete it.

        Wind Waker was actually the first Zelda title that was fully linear. You literally can’t access any other dungeons until you complete the current one. Dragon Roost has to be completed before you are given access to Forest Haven, and Forest Haven has to be completed before you get the events that lead up to the Tower of the Gods. So on and so forth for the rest of the game.

        Majora’s Mask wasn’t the fully linear.

        Wind Waker was.

        • erikingvoldsen

          This isn’t non-linearity. You aren’t doing the Snowhead dungeon before the Woodfall dungeon. You’re just electing to not finish the Woodfall dungeon.

          • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

            Fully linear implies that you have absolutely no choice in completing dungeons.

            If you can elect to not finish a dungeon before moving onto the next one, that means the game isn’t full linear.

            If a person can’t beat Odalwa and decides to give the next dungeon a try instead. They actually can do that. You can’t do that in Wind Waker… you are forced to complete the current dungeon.

            How hard is that to understand? One game is more linear then the other.

          • erikingvoldsen

            Actually, Wind Waker is far less linear in terms of sidequests, while most of MM’s sidequests require completion or partial completion of the game dungeons. Then there’s the overworld. Majora’s Mask requires almost no exploration whatsoever. It gives you a clear path and is the first game to actually block off parts of the overworld.

            In Wind Waker, you get the whole overworld at your disposal after completing a third of the game. In Majora’s Mask, you need to complete half of the game and even then you only have access to the Canyon, not Ikana Kingdom, which is where the majority of the Canyon area is.

          • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

            First off way to change the subject.

            Your statement…. Majora’s Mask was fully linear. If it was truly that linear you wouldn’t be able to break it at all. Do you not have any comment on that?

            Additionally Majora’s Mask has way more sidequests then Wind Waker. So if you count side-quests as making a game less “linear”… then Majora’s Mask is actually an incredibly “non-linear” like game. According to your own logic. Majora’s Mask has far more side quests then Wind Waker if you need me to bring up a list of all the sidequests I will.

            Wind Waker also had plenty of gating. Ever try to go to Forbidden Wood’s before Dragon Roost? If you stray off course (as in try to reach other squares on the map) the King of the Red Lion’s actually stops you and blocks you from straying from the games fairly linear path. Then there is the fact that you can’t access the next dungeon AT ALL until you complete the one you currently are on.

            Also like I said you don’t have to complete half the game to get to Ikana Canyon. All you need is the dungeon items. There is only one dungeon you need to complete in order to access further area’s…. Snowhead Temple.

    • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

      The original Legend of Zelda had a difficulty curve, and still gave players freedom. Enemies become stronger in dungeons they want to discourage you from entering.

      If a dungeon is too difficult, you just go find one you can manage in.

      It’s similar to Mega Man games…. there’s a formula that makes it easier…. but still it’s more about finding a level that you can manage and get the furthest in. Once you get your foot in and start getting items, power and abilities, you are able to tackle more and more.

  • Brian Cardona

    Zelda multiplayer

  • Midnafan

    I don’t really know how i can have an opinion on something that essentially doesn’t exist yet. But of course I’m excited, it’s Zelda! Of course the only reason I could not be excited is that I don’t have a Wii U yet. :'( I don’t really care about Nintendo’s plans, as I’m sure whatever they do will be great, and based on all the thoughts and rumors of changes going around, I am excited to see something different. The essence of Zelda…Well, considering the whole aspect is exploration, I suppose the most important thing is having fun, whether the game is good or bad, linear or no-linear, long or short, and no matter how the player chooses to go about playing the game, as long as they enjoy their time playing and have fun on a new adventure, i think that’s the “essence” of Zelda. :)

  • Nikki

    I’m excited for the Zelda Wii U, but got less excited when I read that it might be multi-player. I have no friends to play it with. I have loved every Zelda game that I have played so far, even though I haven’t finished some of them. I really don’t care if it’s liner or non-liner.

    • Midnafan

      I don’t think the first game for the Wii U console will be mulitplayer. Didn’t Nintendo say they wanted to focus more on single player anyways, and develop that experience? :/

      • Nikki

        I don’t know if they said that or not. It’s been speculated and rumored that it’s going to be multi-player. Wish Nintendo would actually say. I sure hope so. But still, if anything does become multi-player, I have no friends to play with, so I prefer single player options.

        • Midnafan

          I can’t cite it, but I’m almost positive they said they would go back to focusing more on single player around the same time they started dropping vague hints as to what they were working on in Zelda U. :/

    • Draco

      If it is multiplayer, then I really hope that it is optional.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cameron.lilly.37 Cameron Lilly

    You know, WW, TP, and SS have actually been my three favorite games in the Zelda series so far. I hope they keep a lot of the elements of all three. I’ve always thought that having a 3D fourswards game (like 4 links 2 WW but on the ground) would be great, although I don’t see tht happening for this installment. I AM excited about the Multiplayer. New Super Mario Bros. U and Wii showed us how GREAT Nintendo can be when it comes to mixing co-op and competitive playing. Although, a Luma-style partner like in Mario Galaxy 2 would work great as well. I’m also excited about the controler. I have enjoyed the motion controls for a while, but MAN am I ready for some Wind Waker-style gamplay again! I had fun with the exactness of SS, but let’s bring baack the flashy moveset from Twilight Princess! Maybe a shake of the Controler for a sheild bash? I have high expectations for this game, but I have LOVED the direction of recent Zeldas (those handhelds aside) and am sure Nintendo will still exceed them. My only concern is non-liniarity. I love exploration as much as the next guy, but I’m interrested in how they will pull off a great Zelda-esch story without an exact way to play through?

  • Mirsyis

    I dont care where they take the game lol its zelda so ik it will be worth playing. The only zelda games i didnt play much was the ds ones and old nes ones but they werent bad either just didnt get into them as much :P my fav type of games come from nintendo and i’ll always give whatever they have in mind a chance :) oh and with multiplayer im curious where that will go :P

  • Nintendofreakcjm1

    You know…if Skyward Sword had a better overworld, and a bigger sky area…I’d actually consider it the best game to date. Point is, I don’t think Zelda’s non-linearity should come at the cost of it’s story. Zelda NEEDS a straight-forward linear story.

    • DementedAvenger27

      i don’t think linearity of the gameplay should affect story. maybe the story elements can happen outside of the dungeons. maybe the story can ask you to go to dungeon A or B, or give you a few dungeons to pick from. or maybe just make it more like MM and give us a bunch of different side quests to choose from that don’t require order.

  • Geomint

    I personally think that the multiplayer in Zelda is great but as it’s own separate game. Like Axel has said Zelda is mainly a single-player game. I’ve always had ideas of a multiplayer Zelda game and I think the Wii U can do it by having the 1-4 people sharing the pad in the middle and using the tv screen as the main place or maybe even incorporate the 3DS as the new gba advance link.

  • Hero’s Shade:|

    I would love a non-linear Zelda. But only to an extent. Even though the newer Zelda’s have been specifically ordered in terms of dungeons, the developement of characters and storylines have become awesome! Even if SS was one of the most linear Zelda games, its characters had much more depth to their personality and changed throughout the storyline (instead of uniform personality throughout the game). Groose and Ghirahim specifically were great examples of fully developed characters. I do have a thirst for non-linearity in the next Zelda. But also want Nintendo to keep up the good work concerning storylines and character developement. A game with both non-linearity and a full fledged storyline would definitely make it the biggest and best Zelda ever and do justice to what the series has becomed renowned for.

  • http://www.controlpaddesign.com/ TheMaverickk

    I’m for the most part in complete agreement with Axl’s opinion on this matter.

    My personal expectations and hopes for Zelda Wii U;

    1. A more complete, fleshed out, open world. Dungeon’s aren’t something that necessarily have to be tied to story or plot content and how players choose to tackle them should be more open. Not to mention break away from conventional themed dungeons (forest, fire, water, ect). Also I’d rather see a smaller world that is well thought out and designed to that of a poorly designed huge world that has nothing to offer.

    2. Player interaction, but no multiplayer. Players should be connected with other players online…. but how they interact should be limited. Personally I think leaving messages on walls for other players to find is a good example of this, or having guide post stones that players can mark up and share info on…. or map sharing for dungeons…. or you can see where other players have suffered terrible fates (skeletons mark player death areas). To me that is how Zelda players should be interacting with other Zelda players.

    3. Useful and well thought out inventory. Personally I think they should give Link all his primary tools from the outset of his adventure. Sword, Bombs, and Bow & Arrow. The original Legend of Zelda gave these primary items very early in the adventure for a reason. They were useful adventuring tools.

    Much the same giving Link these at the start means early dungeons can use these items for puzzles and exploration. Bombing walls…. hitting switches, lighting torches…. finding hidden grotto’s, ect. Giving this basic set of items early would also make the whole non-linear aspect be more manageable design wise.

    If Nintendo can deliver in these respects I’ll be satisfied with this Zelda title.

  • DatGuy

    Oh god, horrible visions of the second player being Navi who gets to spam “Hello! Hey! Listen!” sfxs until player 1 rage quits and wants to be Navi. XD

  • http://twitter.com/MK_Langley Adventurer of Hyrule

    The second player should be Zelda and we could control her like we did in spirit Tracks.

    As for the next Zelda game structure i personally loved the lack of overworld of skyward Sword which went for a more Metroid Style of exploration. Overworlds are a double edged sword and they are only good when they are filled with content or at least not empty spaces. I would also like to see dungeons be non mandatory for the experience.

  • itsameluigi1290

    The only time you see the words “Zelda” and “Disappoint” together, is when the words “Can’t possibly” are in between them!

    In all seriousness, I can’t really say if the new Zelda will disappoint. I’m gonna wait and see.

  • awsomeMrlink

    I hope the multiplayer will be like Nintendo Land, not something that’s required, but something that helps(I don’t like the same health bar idea though, if you’re playing with a fan new to the series you are most likely going to die). Non-linearity should be dungeon order (Like Oot because I loved going out of order in that game) in my opinion, and you should have 3 hearts unlike Skyward Sword.

  • http://www.facebook.com/linus.lehmann.5 Linus Lehmann

    Pray for something other than Four Swords U, in all reality if they’re going to do a multi-player that isn’t Four Swords, It will probably have Sheik as Player two, and a 1-Player mode where it doesn’t require multi-player. As for the non-linearity, there will probably be more dungeons, but there would be like, branching paths, like you can go to one dungeon, or another at one point, but both will have the same items, but different theme, designs, puzzles, bosses etc, and the other becomes in-accessable for the rest of the game, and then you’d probably be able to do certain sets of dungeon in any order. (Such as 5->6->7 as 7->5->6)

  • audioblogs12

    The only game in the LoZ series that meets the description “nonlinear and multiplayer” is Four Swords for Gameboy Advance. That is NOT what I want.

    The essence of The Legend of Zelda seems to be the first game right now. Many of the 2D LoZ games (LA, OoA, OoS, PH) copy it – collect 8 of an item to prepare for the final battle. ALttP took it one step further, requiring you to collect three things for a mid-game event. Nearly all of the 3D games copy it.
    Then of course there are outliers. I am not sure if Majora’s Mask or Zelda II stands out more. Minish Cap and Spirit Tracks have the same “reforge something broken” essence throughout the game that we see in the latter half of WW, TP, and SS.

    Zelda feels to me like an urgent quest to save someone of great importance from a tragedy that Link usually witnesses, and therefore save the world. Dialogue is essential. Trade quests are important. It is impossible to feel the Legend of Zelda without cutscenes.

  • The Dark Tribe

    While no series is perfect The Zelda series has never disappointed before and its unlikely it will now

  • Zelda44

    I personally am very excited for Zelda Wii U. I see potential for lots of different possibilities..and it’s clear that Nintendo is wanting to make some changes… I am fine with change, but I definitely do not want multiplayer in Zelda. I just don’t feel like it belongs, and it would ruin the feel of it being your own personal journey with Link. As to linearity or non-linearity..it doesn’t really matter to me. Either one would work. For the graphics…I would like to see an incredible HD style for Zelda! I either want to see a completely realisitc style such as in Skyrim or Assassin’s Creed (I say Skyrim because of the landscapes and Assassin’s Creed because of the realistic appearance of the characters), or the Final Fantasy style! The characters still have an anime look, but the graphics are simply incredible. Either one of those styles would be wonderful to me! Especially in the “Final Fantasy” graphics style, I think The Legend of Zelda would look absolutely incredible!

    Now here I am about to mention a topic highly controversial in the Zelda universe…Voice acting. I think every character in the next Zelda game should be voice acted, EXCEPT for Link. We must still have our mute hero, after all:) although I approve of allowing Link to have several different dialogue choices at times such as we saw in Skyward Sword.

    As to the story of the next game…I want to see an unpredictable plot with lots of twists and turns. Skyward Sword is my favorite Zelda game mostly because of its story and the relationship between Link and Zelda. I think it was absolutely beautiful–could’ve been better–but couldn’t every game? No game is perfect. Actually building a relationship between Link and Zelda made the story much more moving and enjoyable, and I think that element should be continued in the next game.

    But here I am rambling on…I think I should leave room for some other people to comment now;)

  • BlackRaven6695

    “Did you think The Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword were great games and had no doubts about the future of Zelda in any way and are very happy with the current direction?”

    That’s me.

  • TwilightOcarina

    I like the idea of non-linearity, if I am understanding it correctly and thinking it means finding the dungeons on your own, just a huge open world, right? I LOVED that about the first Zelda. After buying OoT and TP, it was the 3rd I got and that was why I loved it. That, and I got to name everything myself. I think that the non-linearity might be good; some plot still, but less of a drive. Not pressured to save the princess just yet; only a few sidequests first… My vision; a HUGE, giant, open world with surprises at every corner, long transit times and hard-to-find dungeons and places, and so many places to be explored… Of course, a little while into the game you’d find ways to travel faster when needed, like warping and Epona (I really want Epona back!) but still, imagine tromping through a huge forest at night… Do you dare to leave the path and explore? Perhaps you’ll find the next dungeon… Or a nasty bunch of monsters. Or perhaps that piece of heart. Things that will keep us looking for ages, all sorts of puzzles! That sounds awesome.

  • Gabe. S

    I have one question. Is it going to be in a “Hyrule” or not? Like OoT or WW.